Glad that I could help Frans.  FlightSim Store Link

Already busy downloading - I hope I don't fall asleep...

 

Frans

The changeover from FSX to P3D is gradual but persistent, this will be a difficult topic to argue within a year or even 6 months. FSX is great, we got the most out of it we could but it is static, and even slow progress beats standing still.

+1

The changeover from FSX to P3D is gradual but persistent, this will be a difficult topic to argue within a year or even 6 months. FSX is great, we got the most out of it we could but it is static, and even slow progress beats standing still.

Agreed.  The tipping point is coming.  

As Mr. Smith says:

 

 

Cheers, Rob.

Rob,

 

BTW, the new beta of MSI Afterburner (4.0 beta 9) displays the OSD of frame rate and GPU items etc., in P3d 2.3. The author is apparently more responsive than nVidia is  to our "niche" market.   

Rob,

 

BTW, the new beta of MSI Afterburner (4.0 beta 9) displays the OSD of frame rate and GPU items etc., in P3d 2.3. The author is apparently more responsive than nVidia is  to our "niche" market.   

Thanks for heads up.

Spirit

 

 

-Flight dynamics and ground physics modelling
-Updating cira-2006 airports and navigational aids
-An overhaul of the ATC system
 
LM have stated the will not tackle these and leave this door open for 3rd party development ...

 

Hmm... as I understand it, major changes are required "under the hood" before 3rd parties can make any significant progress with ATC/AI or the navigational database.

 

The current method of defining waypoints, frequencies, etc. within hundreds/thousands of airport .bgls makes it very difficult to apply any universal updates.

 

ATC and AI behavior need a complete overhaul... maybe I'll be eating crow too, but I don't foresee any third party making any more progress (beyond what has already been done with FSX) unless LM opens up the code and provides a more thorough SDK.

 

For me, aside from the 32-bit limitation, these 3 areas are the biggest weaknesses in FSX (not graphics).  Until LM makes some progress in these areas, I'll remain comfortable on the fence.  I do find it ironic that graphics improvements and eye-candy comprise most of the progress LM has made with their "non-entertaining" simulator.

 I do find it ironic that graphics improvements and eye-candy comprise most of the progress LM has made with their "non-entertaining" simulator.

 

Couldn't agree more. I also wonder why they've included lots of "pretty" aeroplanes from companies not known for accurate flight dynamics. And apart from that If I'm teaching a student I don't start them off in an F22 or Beech Bonanza.

 

They need to make up their mind whether they're trying to sell "eye candy" or a serious flight simulator for training purposes. Right now it's just eye-candy.

If visuals (eye-candy as you like to call it) are not what you want in a flight simulator, then there are other simulators in the market with far less visuals that might interest you ... but for many (dare I suggest majority), including the CEO of Boeing are all about the "visual" experience of flight.  So yes, visual is the "key" priority as it should be.  Flying by FMC can be a nice challenge -- certainly in setting it up and then seeing it all work, but that's a relatively easy process to setup/code and is well covered in many 3rd party aircraft already.

 

ATC and AI can be handle entirely via the SDK ... why we haven't seen it is because of the complexity of such systems ... it's not a 1-2 person development type of project, it's a 8-10 developers full time type of project.  That's why you don't see full featured ATC/AI it in XP10, in FSX, and in P3D.  There are also ATC service (humans) you can subscribe to if you really want to get to "as real as it gets" ... I think Froogle did a review of this service, another great alternative.

 

There are products that attempt this and do a pretty good job (I've tested a few but they found them a little too quirky) but they are bound to FSX SP2 SimConnect ... LM's managed SimConnect has more features and it's one area LM seem to be open to for adding 3rd party requested options (which they have and continue to do so).

 

I think what 3rd party developers need is not a new ATC or AI system, but updated tools and/or SimConnect methods to make it easier to manage such activity.  Have you looked at SimDirector ... currently it's focus is more about Missions and Training ... but that entire UI and process could easily be extended ... the object management and flow system is pretty cool.  Some potential ideas that come to mind ... the user enters/activates a flight plan and a "yet to be developed" ATC/AI product essentially builds a mission controlling everything from airport traffic (ground service) to AI traffic patterns, and ATC com from departure to destination ... this is just me thinking out loud of future potential.

 

Unless you want to kill this thread, please not the "entertainment" topic for the 1 Millionth time.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

 

Right now it's just eye-candy.

 

You're kidding right?  You do realize P3D is being used in professional motion simulators that are FAA approved?  And not just one or two here and there ... suggest you do some research.  

 

And why the continual hate on P3D, just because of your R6025 error that LM can't reproduce?

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

 

BTW, the new beta of MSI Afterburner (4.0 beta 9) displays the OSD of frame rate and GPU items etc., in P3d 2.3.

 

Excellent, will have to check it out.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Hmm... as I understand it, major changes are required "under the hood" before 3rd parties can make any significant progress with ATC/AI or the navigational database.

 

The current method of defining waypoints, frequencies, etc. within hundreds/thousands of airport .bgls makes it very difficult to apply any universal updates.

 

That's exactly why LM is leaving it to 3rd parties...  it's a massive undertaking to try to make a universal update to the entire world.  However, the vast majority of their customers (not us sim-at-home folks) don't actually need a global update.  They need updates to certain specific airports for their training scenarios, which can be handled by add-ons that upgrade just those particular airports.  And those customers can get that, either doing it in-house, contracting someone to do it for them, or in come cases, by buying off-the-shelf 3PD add-ons that satisfy their needs.  The 2006 global nav data underlying the rest of the sim isn't a big deal to them. 

 

I don't look for that to change until a 64-bit Prepar3d comes along.  Since they're breaking add-on compatibility then anyway, that's the time to make such a drastic change to how nav data is stored so that it can be redesigned for easier future updates.

 

 

ATC and AI can be handle entirely via the SDK ... why we haven't seen it is because of the complexity of such systems ... it's not a 1-2 person development type of project, it's a 8-10 developers full time type of project.

 

Not really true.  I agree that developing an external program to fully simulate ATC and inject/control AI traffic in real-time would be a major undertaking (assuming simconnect would allow all that data to get squeezed through without causing other issues).  But why the need to re-invent the wheel (or, gasp, create missions)?  P3D/FSX already has a very robust ATC/AI system built right into the code.  Unfortunately, the functionality is broken and there is nothing in the SDK that allows anyone to fix it.

 

Of all the third-party ATC programs available, most would still agree that the synthesized voices of the default ATC is still the most realistic.  Where in the SDK can a developer get access to the simulator's speech engine to prevent them from having to record thousands of phrases?

 

The erratic vectoring of the default ATC is caused by a failure to account for wind when issuing heading assignments.  Where in the SDK can one inject some logic to correct that?

 

No "Line Up and Wait" behind arrivals, non-existent speed control, no takeoff clearances when arrivals reach 6 mile final, cancellation of IFR when you don't respond in time.  I could go on and on.  Where in the SDK can those issues be fixed?

 

Personally, I think LM should be able to fix many of these problems without outside help; but if they want to leave it up to third parties, they need to provide a lot more tools.

 

As for licensing, I could care less... between my job, my wife's job, and my daughter's education, I qualify for every license LM has to offer.  I have nothing against eye-candy, I like a pretty picture and fluid graphics as much as anyone... but there are a whole lot of other things that could be addressed by a professional simulator.  I guess I just don't currently see enough bang for the buck... or maybe I screwed up and got FSX performing too well in dx9 mode  :rolleyes: .

P3D is all about stability now. Not planned features. The recent update eye-candy like because the HDR now actually WORKS.

 

Before it was an option that did very little.

 

Also virtual aspects of a simluation matter. Especially when it comes to seeing distance and depth, and especially if you are flying VFR. ATC isn't so much a thing needed for commercial flight simluation as the instructors provide that.

Of all the third-party ATC programs available, most would still agree that the synthesized voices of the default ATC is still the most realistic.

 

 

Those are not syntheisized. They are real voices pieced together phrase by phrase. Most of the ATC addons use the default text-to-speech program the computer is on. So getting something like Ivona makes it sound much better. However, because of that no static or mic noise is added to it's too "clean" to sound realistic.

 

Some ATC programs just flat out don't have the experience in recording and editing voices together to sound realistic. Microsoft did.

 

I think there may be a way to add distortion to the path of text-to-speech, but I haven't tried it yet. I've even played with the idea to output ATC to a guitar amp (a small battery powered amp)

 

However, I haven't gotten any 3rd party ATC yet, as it's up in the air for P3D.

P3D sucks so far, in my honest oppinion. FSX ran smoother than P3D on any day of the week (I never thought I'd say that.)

 

P3D lags like insane making my computer seem like it's one of the original PC's ever made on DOS....... I try flying with the PMDG 747 I get about 5 fps at any airport add on with fs dreamteam....

 

I use the Airbus, I'll get 10-15 fps at most airports too... FSX I was floating between 25 to 35 fps with the PMDG 777 AT JFK! lol P3D is a joke so far, and should offer refunds.